Additional modifications to the Blumgart pancreaticojejunostomy: Results of a propensity score-matched analysis versus Cattel-Warren pancreaticojejunostomy

Abstract Background Postoperative pancreatic fistula continues to occur frequently after pancreatoduodenectomy. Methods We have described a modification of the Blumgart pancreaticojejunostomy. The modification of the Blumgart pancreaticojejunostomy was compared to the Cattel-Warren pancreaticojejunostomy in cohorts of patients matched by propensity scores based on factors predictive of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula, which was the primary endpoint of this study. Based on a noninferiority study design, 95 open pancreatoduodenectomies per group were needed. Feasibility of the modification of the Blumgart pancreaticojejunostomy in robotic pancreatoduodenectomy was also shown. All pancreaticojejunostomies were performed by a single surgeon. Results Between October 2011 and May 2019, there were 415 pancreatoduodenectomies with either a Cattel-Warren pancreaticojejunostomy (n = 225) or a modification of the Blumgart pancreaticojejunostomy (n = 190). There was 1 grade C postoperative pancreatic fistula in 190 consecutive modification of the Blumgart pancreaticojejunostomies (0.5%). Logistic regression analysis showed that the rate of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula was not affected by consecutive case number. After exclusion of robotic pancreatoduodenectomies (the Cattel-Warren pancreaticojejunostomy: 82; modification of the Blumgart pancreaticojejunostomy: 66), 267 open pancreatoduodenectomies were left, among which the matching process identified 109 pairs. The modification of the Blumgart pancreaticojejunostomy was shown to be noninferior to the Cattel-Warren pancreaticojejunostomy with respect to clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (11.9% vs 22.9%; odds ratio: 0.46 [0.21–0.93]; P = .03), grade B postoperative pancreatic fistula (11.9% vs 18.3%; P = .18), and grade C postoperative pancreatic fistula (0 vs 4.6%; P = .05) as well as to all secondary study endpoints. The modification of the Blumgart pancreaticojejunostomy was feasible in 66 robotic pancreatoduodenectomies. In this subgroup with 1 conversion to open surgery (1.5%), a clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula occurred after 9 procedures (13.6%) with no case of grade C postoperative pancreatic fistula and a 90-day mortality of 3%. Conclusion The modification of the Blumgart pancreaticojejunostomy described herein is noninferior to the Cattel-Warren pancreaticojejunostomy in open pancreatoduodenectomy. This technique is also feasible in robotic pancreatoduodenectomy

Robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy with vascular resection: technical details and results from a high-volume center

Background: Pancreaticoduodenectomy with vein resection (PD-VR) is widely accepted as a standard procedure to achieve a higher rate of R0 resections in borderline resectable pancreatic tumors. Thanks to the availability of newer technologies, such as the da Vinci Surgical System, several high-volume centers are reporting small series of minimally invasive PD-VR. Methods: A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database was performed to identify patients who underwent robot-assisted PD-VR (RAPD-VR) between May 2011 and December 2019. The following factors were specifically analyzed: intraoperative results, post-operative complications, mortality at 90 days, patency of vascular reconstructions, overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). Results: During the study period 184 patients underwent RAPD, including 22 who received a RAPDVR (12.0%). The superior mesenteric vein was resected in 9 patients (40.9%), the portal vein in 3 patients (13.6%) and the spleno-mesenteric junction in 10 patients (45.5%). Based on the classification provided by the International Study Group on Pancreatic Surgery these procedures were classified as follows: 1 type I (4.5%), 3 type II (13.6%), 10 type III (45.5%) and 8 type IV (36.4%). In no patient the splenic vein was ligated and left behind. The splenic vein was always reimplanted either on the porto-mesenteric axis or in the inferior vena cava. All but one procedure, were completed under robotic assistance (conversion rate 1/22; 4.5%) after a mean operative time of 610.0±83.5 minutes. Median estimated blood loss was 899.7 mL (719.4–1,430.2 mL), with 2 patients (9.1%) receiving intraoperative blood transfusions. Sixteen patients developed post-operative complications (72.7%), graded ≥III (according to Clavien-Dindo) in 5 patients (22.7%). Two patients died within 90 days, accounting for a postoperative mortality of 9.1%. Interestingly, post-operative pancreatic fistula (grade B) occurred in only 1 patient (4.5%). Repeat surgery was required in 4 patients (18.2%) and hospital readmission in 1 patient (4.5%). At the longest available follow-up, vein reconstruction was patent in 19 patients (86.4%). Eighteen patients had a final diagnosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (81.8%). After circumferential study of resection margins, microscopic tumor residual ≤1 mm was found in 11 patients (50.0%). The mean number of examined lymph nodes was 42.2 (±16.3), and vascular infiltration was confirmed in 13 patients (59.1%). Median OS was 39.7 (27.5–not available) and DFS 32.9 (11.5–45.8). Tumor recurrence was identified in 6 patients (27.3%). One patient (4.5%) developed isolated local recurrence. Conclusions: We have shown the feasibility of RAPD-VR. The results reported herein need to be confirmed in larger series and their generalizability remains to be established

KIDNEY-PANCREAS TRANSPLANTATION

Abstract non previsto per questo tipo di pubblicazion

Update on pancreatic transplantation on the management of diabetes

Pancreas transplantation is the only therapy that can restore insulin independence in beta-cell penic diabetic recipients. Because of the need for life-long immunosuppression and the intial surgical risk associated with the transplant procedure, Pancreas transplantation is a therapeutic option only in selected diabetic patients. Based on renal function, three main populations of diabetic recipients of a pancreas transplant can be identified: uremic patients, posturemic patients (following successful kidney transplantation), and non-uremic patients. Uremic patients are best treated by simultaneous kidneypancreas transplantation with grafts obtained from the same deceased donor. Posturemic patients can receive a pancreas after kidney transplantation, if the previous renal graft has a good functional reserve. Non-uremic patients can receive a pancreas alone transplant if their diabetes is poorly controlled, despite optimal insulin therapy, suffer from unawareness hypoglycemia events and/or develop progressive chronic complications of diabetes. The results of pancreas transplantation have improved over the years and are currently not inferior to those of renal transplantation in non-diabetic recipients. A functioning pancreatic graft can prolong the life of diabetic recipients, improves their quality of life, and can halt, or reverse, the progression of chronic complications of diabetes. Unfortunately, because of ageing of donor population and lack of timely referral of potential recipients, the annual volume of pancreas transplants is declining. Considering that the results of pancreas transplantation depend on center volume, and that adequate center volume is required also for training of newer generations of transplant physcians and surgeons, centralization of pancreas transplantation activity should be considered

Induction and Immunosuppressive Management of Pancreas Transplant Recipients

Despite improved overall outcomes rejection continues to occur frequently after pancreas transplantation

Robotic-Assisted Pancreatic Resections

Background: Robotic assistance enhances surgical dexterity and could facilitate wider adoption of laparoscopy for pancreatic resections (PR). Methods: Data were prospectively entered into a database and analyzed retrospectively to assess feasibility and safety of robotic-assisted PR (RAPR). Additionally, robotic-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (RAPD) was compared to a contemporary group of open pancreaticoduodenectomies (OPD). Results: Between October 2008 and October 2014, 200 consecutive patients underwent RAPR. Three procedures were converted to open surgery (1.5 %), despite 14 patients required associated vascular procedures. RAPD was performed in 83 patients (41.5 %), distal pancreatectomy in 83 (41.5 %), total pancreatectomy in 17 (8.5 %), tumor enucleation in 12 (6 %), and central pancreatectomy in 5 (2.5 %). Thirty-day and 90-day mortality rates were 0.5 and 1 %, respectively. Both deaths occurred after RAPD with vein resection. Complications occurred in 63.0 % of the patients (≥Clavien-Dindo grade IIIb in 4 %). Median comprehensive complication index was 20.9 (0-26.2). Incidence of grade B/C pancreatic fistula was 28.0 %. Reoperation was required in 14 patients (7.0 %). The risk of reoperation decreased after post-operative day 20 (OR 0.072) (p = 0.0015). When compared to OPD, RAPD was associated with longer mean operative time (527.2 ± 166.1 vs. 425.3 ± 92.7; <0.0001) but had an equivalent safety profile. The median number of examined lymph nodes (37; 28.8–45.3 vs. 36; 28–52.8) and the rate of margin positivity in patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer were also similar (12.5 vs. 45.5 %). Conclusions: RAPR, including RAPD, are safely feasible in selected patients. The results of RAPD in pancreatic cancer are encouraging but deserve further investigation

Robot-assisted spleen preserving distal pancreatectomy (RA-SPDP): a single center experience

Aim: To define the outcome of robot-assisted spleen preserving distal pancreatectomy (RA-SPDP) in a highvolume center. Methods: A retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database was performed to identify RA-SPDP performed at our Center between April 2008 to October 2017. Results: During the study period, RA-SPDP was attempted in 54 patients. The spleen was preserved, always along with the splenic vessels (Kimura procedure), in 52 patients (96.3%). There were no conversions to open or laparoscopic surgery. Mean operative time was 260 min (231.3-360.0). Grade B post-operative pancreatic fistula (POPF) occurred in 19 patients (35.2%). There were no grade C POPF. Two patients required repeat surgery because of postoperative bleeding and splenic infarction, respectively. There were no post-operative deaths at 90 days. Excluding one patient with known diagnosis of metastasis from renal cell carcinoma, malignancy was eventually identified in 7 of 53 patients (13.2%). Conclusion: In the hands of dedicated pancreatic surgeons, robotic assistance results in a high rate of spleen preservation with good clinical outcomes. Despite careful preoperative selection, several patients can be found to have a malignant tumor. Taken altogether these results suggest that patients requiring these procedures should be preferentially referred to specialized centers